Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI and Elon Musk

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#601

Post by dgellow »

carlossouza wrote: post #108
magnio wrote: post #6

> Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”, to which Elon replied: “Yup”. Wow the most open OpenAI has ever been is when someone sue them. On the other hand, th…

> The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science... Based on this line of reasoning, ANY company that builds any given technology and intends to share (sell) it to the world, but not divulge how it was done, can call itself OpenWhatever. They are clearly saying that the word “Open” in their name means nothing.

That's 100% the case, you can call your company OpenWhatever and keep everything closed. It's a brand, nothing else

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#603

Post by AlfredBarnes »

sroussey wrote: post #87

> Elon wanted majority equity, initial board control, and to be CEO. In the middle of these discussions, he withheld funding. Reid Hoffman bridged the gap to cover salaries and operations. Wow, Reid Hoffman for the win.

He catches wins surprisingly often.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#604

Post by philwelch »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #568
m3kw9 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the core mission is to advance and help humanity, then they determine by changing it to profit and making it closed will help that mission, then it is a valid decision

That's like saying rolling back environmental protection regulation will help humanity advance.

Not at all; it’s actually far more plausible that, in many cases, rolling back environmental regulations will help humanity advance.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#606

Post by lupire »

ajisiekskaiek wrote: post #159
ajisiekskaiek wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are advocating here for an unresolvable set of ethics, which just happens to be one that conveniently leaves abuse of AI on the table. You take as an axiom of your ethical system the absolute right to create and propagate in public these AI technologies regardless of any externalities and social pressures created. It is of course an ethical system primarily and exclusively interested in advancing the individual a…

I should also note that the wild west was not at all lacking in a set of ethics, and in many ways was far stricter than the east at the time.

Please elaborate

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#607

Post by hef19898 »

elif wrote: post #583
mort96 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the harm from these LLMs are mostly in how freely accessible they are. Just pay OpenAI a relatively tiny fee and you can generate tonnes of plausible spam designed to promote your product or service or trick people into giving you money. That's the primary problem we're facing right now. The problem is... keeping them closed source isn't helping with that problem, it only serves to guarantee OpenAI a cut of the…

Pandora's box is already open on that one.. and none of the model providers are really attempting to address that kind of issue. Same with impersonation, deepfakes, etc. We can never again know whether text, images, audio, or video are authentic on their own merit. The only hope we have there is private key cryptography. Luckily we already have the tools for this, NFT in the case of media and DKIM in the case of your…

So we needed AI generated spam and scam content for Blockchain tech for digital content to make sense...

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#608

Post by mlrtime »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #588
BlueTemplar wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I get how one might use a variety of other tools for informal communication, I don't really use e-mail for that any more either, but I'm curious, what else can you possibly use for work ? With the requirement that it must be easy to back up and transfer (for yourself as well as the organization), so any platforms are immediately out of question.

Unfortunately Slack is what is used at places I've worked at.

I prefer Slack over email... coming from using Outlook for 20+ years in a corporate environment, slack is light years beyond email in rich communication.

I'm trying to think of 1 single thing email does better than slack in a corporate communication.

Is slack perfect? Absolutely not. I don't care that I can't use any client I want or any back end administration costs or hurdles. As a user, there is no comparison.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#609

Post by KoolKat23 »

At creation a company's purpose is defined in its memorandum & articles of association, in this case OpenAI's would be to achieve AGI and to better humanity through the development and provision of AI models. This is how the company creates value and sustains itself.

Whether it is for-profit or not-for-profit is a different point. In this case it is clearly for profit and it should be registered and taxed as such.

They try avoid the implied obligation through a creative case of running a company held by a "foundation". A tax avoidance scheme basically.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#610

Post by davej »

sgift wrote: post #522
davej wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misleading. Please read the actual source in context rather than just the excerpt (it's at the bottom of the blog). They are talking about AI safety and not maximizing profit. Here's the previous sentence for context: > “a safe AI is harder to build than an unsafe one, then by opensorucing everything, we make it easy for someone unscrupulous with access to overwhelming amount of hardware to build an unsafe AI…

I find it good that no one until now provided this bullshit lie as context. The "we need it to be closed for it to be safe" claptrap is the same reasoning people used for feudalism: You see, only certain people are great enough to use AGI responsibly/can be trusted to govern, so we cannot just give the power freely to the unwashed masses, which would use it irresponsibly. You can certainly trust us to use it to help…

This is from an internal email, it was not written for PR. Whether he is correct or not about his concerns, it's clear that this is an honestly held belief by Ilya.
Post reply on HN